Cohabitation Rights

Factual Questions
1

First, I am not looking for legal advice, just trying to settle a bet. This is a completely hypothetical situation.

What would someone’s rights be in this situation. Say one party owns the house in which they both live. They are just dating, but they share expenses, etc. Without a written lease or tenancy agreement, what rights would the other person (the non-owner) have if they were to break up? Would they be considered a tenant? How long would they have to move out if it came to that? BTW, this would be in Washington, DC. Thanks.

2

I don’t know about the situation in Washington DC, but around here, the other party would have what are known as “Homestead Rights” (not to be confused with pioneering, that’s just what they called them around here). Of course, there would have to be certain criteria satisfied such as whether the person who was the non-owner was getting mail there, had that address on his Driver’s License, etc. If they’re truly cohabiting, they are more than a tenant by the choice of the homeowner, and in fact, may well be living common-law, with all the rights that entails.

3

How long have they been living together? That’s a critical piece of info. needed. The answers to your questions, may be different depending upon the length of time.

4

It’s just a hypothetical, so there is no real answer, but let’s say a year or two for argument’s sake.

5

This article seems on point:
How to Evict an Ex

6

It’s a very complex area of the law. Are they living like a couple? And, for how long. Even though they weren’t married by the state or (in this case) territory, do they introduce themselves as a married couple (and they don’t have to use the terms “husband” and “wife”).

Basically, state marriage is a legal situation, and not a romantic situation. There are a whole boatload or rights and privileges that are automatically conferred by law when a couple is wedded by the state. However, many of these rights and privileges can be conferred if the people involved are living as a couple, but not married in the state’s eyes. In that case, it is up to the courts to decide and the lawyers to get rich.

7

Actually only 11 US states have common law marriage in any form. It is more accurate to say that the rights of a tenant can quite easily conferred without a lease, than to say that the rights of a spouse can be conferred without a marriage. The latter is rare, and getting rarer all the time in the U.S. as the general movement is towards elimination of common-law marriage rights.

8

Well I have a couple in mind, but the hypothetical does not affect them at all. Say they have been dating for 9 months, then decide to move in together without being married or engaged. They subsequently live together in a house he owns for 1-2 years. He pays the mortgage, it’s in his name, but as a general rule, they split expenses . After that 1-2 year period, they break up, and he wants her to move out.

In the eyes of the law, would she be viewed as a tenant? What rights would she have as a result? How much time would she have to move out?

9

Seems to me that it all comes down to whether there is tail involved.

If they’re making the beast with two backs on even a semi-regular basis, it would seem to me that they would be viewed less as tenants and more as a couple.

Never underestimate how many witnesses there could be that would be willing to go to court and swear that they’re “gettin’ it on” on a regular basis.

10

In Canada, common law is AFAIK a common occurence and recognized by most provinces. The general rumour is that after 6 months cohabitation, you acquire similar rights to a married couple. It’s a bit more complicated, because marriage is a Canadian federal institution and so separation in common law is convered by provincial law, official divorce by federal.

Worse, if you act in any way like a parent to her kids, you can be liable for child support even though they are not yours.

the “Homestead Acts” of the various western provinces IIRC were so named because they provided protection for a spouse in the days when the guy would come home drunk and tell her “Honey, I lost the farm in a poker game - we’re moving”. You cannot sell, mortgage, or otherwise unload/risk your family home without the consent of your partner who must have independent legal advice before she signs her consent.

I assume if a state in the US does not accept common-law relationships as meaning anything, then of course tehre are unlikely to be any similar legalities around the relationship. Considering the history of “palimony” suits in the media, I assume some states do have the rules. Living in a federal territory complicates it - what are their rules?

Generally, in Canadian provinces, the Landlord-tenat act does not apply unless you are renting (paying specific amount for specific space) for a self-contained dwelling. it is not intended for shared accomodation arrangements. Rooming houses and other such arrangements are handled differently, and due to the types that live in rooming houses plus the oppportunity for exploitation or slumliness, here most rooming houses need special licensing and inspections; so she’s not going to qualify as a roomer. Your DC mileage may vary.

Ontario especially had some wildly bizzarre landlord-tenant rules that have been exploited; say that someone moves in with a legal tenant (landlord can’t stop it), then when the original tenant moves out, claims to be the official tenant; the landlord ahs a tenant now with no ability to screen or deny that person, and evictions are very hard to get.

A lot depends on the official paperwork. If you own the house, and there’s no common law rules, she’s SOL. However, if she’s been contributing to your mortgage (i.e. helping you to buy your house then a good lawyer might turn that into a claim, at the least, for payback - which might be cheaper to pay than fight. After all, fair is fair; if she helped pay your mortgage or freed up your money to pay down the mortgage by paying the electricity and water…

11

WHOA! Keep “general rumor” out of GQ, especially when it’s way off base!

For common law status in Ontario: You must cohabit for 3 years ,OR have a child and a marriage-like relationship

For common law status in BC: You must cohabit for 2 years in a marriage-like relationship

For common law status in New Brunswick: 3 years, a marriage-like relationship, OR 1 year + child

For common law status in Nova Scotia: 2 years.

Alberta: they have a new category, the “Adult Interdependent Relationships Act” - 3 years cohabitation

Manitoba: 3 years in a conjugal relationship

Quebec: common law partners are called “de facto partners” and you don’t have the same rights as married couples

No idea about other provinces and terriotries.

12

I don’t think divorce was a matter of federal law. My marriage was done on provincial paperwork, and I know that a handful of provincial acts had to be read aloud during the ceremony to make the marriage legal in Québec. Since common-law (or civil) partnerships and the rights they afford are also provincially based, it would be bizarre for the federal government to have anything to say about divorce (it didn’t make it into the Criminal Code, did it? [/insert bad-taste Harper/conservatives joke here])

13

And now some information actually relevant to the OP:

So, legally in Washington DC the couple is married. She will be entitled to whatever protections which are offered to a wife in that territory. This could potentially mean that she is entitled to part of his house, spousal support, etc - all of this dependent on specifics of their relationship that we aren’t privy to.

Oops - here’s my cite:http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html

And I will note that in DC, the couple has to indicate that they intend to be married; however, its not clear how they would do that. I suspect if the female half of this equation got annoyed she could certainly suggest that such intent was there. Regardless, the short answer to the OP is that there is no short answer and if the he part figures he can just boot her out with 30 days notice (or whatever), he’s probably mistaken.

14

A key component to common law marriage is if the couple considers themselves to be “married.” If the two people are living together and are actively saying that they aren’t married and don’t intend it as such, you don’t automatically get this whether you like it or not.

Another element is public recognition of the existence. If the two were living together and still dating others, it wouldn’t be a common law marriage.

The thing is people think you can “accidently” marry through common law, this was never the case. In every state that recognizes common law marriage, you have to have the intent to act like a married couple and your community (whatever that is) defines you as married, not dating but married as if you actually went out and got a license.

15

If someone is living in your house, whether their name is on the lease or not, whether you’re getting any “tail” or not:rolleyes:, whether you hold yourself out to be married or not, you have to go to court to legally evict them. Different states have different lengths of time that you can stay with someone before you are considered a tenant- I’ve seen anywhere from three nights in a row to three weeks. If you call the police to remove someone from where they have been living, the police will tell you it’s a civil matter and to have them evicted.

16

In Canada, both the substantive law of marriage and divorce are matters of exclusive federal jurisdiction - only Parliament can enact laws governing the substance of marriage and divorce. See the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 91(26).

The provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage. That means that the provinces decide what formalities are necessary for a valid marriage to be formed: who can perform the ceremony, requirement for marriage licences, waiting periods, and so on.

17

Alice is completely right here.
Marriage, common-law or not, cohabitation, etc. is hardly relevant – it’s a landlord/tenant matter. (And that is a much cleaner matter for a court to decide.)

If there is no written lease or tenancy agreement, than each state has a ‘default’ lease that applies. Generally it’s set on a month-to-month basis, with the same amount of time (1 month) notice required. And in many states, residing there for 1 month is enough to make them a tenant under this default lease.

18

Thanks guys. Does anyone have a link to the relevant statutes by any chance?

19

FWIW, in Ontario Canada, there is also a difference between someone who is “renting” and someone who is “sharing”.

If you pay rent but share living space (living room, kitchen, bathroom, etc) with the person who owns the house or the person whose name is on the lease (when your name is not on the lease), you may be a “licensee” rather than a legal “tenant.” If you are a “licensee” you are not protected by the Landlord Tenant Act. Licensee’s have very little protection.

If I owned a house and my girlfriend came to live with me, I could kick her out with a) no notice if she failed to pay rent or b) with notice if I dumped her and wanted her out. The notice period would be equal to the rental period (so if my girlfriend contributed rent weekly, I could kick her out with one week’s notice.)

20

I have to disagree.

The modern trend in matrimonial property laws is that as between the spouses, the name on the title does not decide questions of possession of the matrimonial residence. If a couple is married and living in the house, the spouse on title normally can’t just evict the other spouse as if the other spouse were a tenant or guest. Both spouses have possession rights, regardless of the legalities of title.

And, in some jurisdictions in North America, that principle has been extended to couples who are living together in a cohabitation arrangement (i.e. “tail”, as In Winnipeg so charmingly put it :stuck_out_tongue: ), so even if they are not formally married, the one on title can’t just evict the other.

Of course, this is one of the areas where there can be considerable differences in approach from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so my comments are just general in nature, and not meant as legal advice. If the OP really wants to settle the bet about what would happen in D.C., he should probably try to buttonhole a lawyer familiar with D.C. law in this area.